Response to The Amazing Atheist on Anarchism and Feminism

so I was recently featured on TG amazing atheists drunken peasants podcast basically ban and TJ did a segment responding to my video about why I believe feminism is a necessary component of anarchism and in my opinion they made quite a lot of crap arguments so I thought it'd be a good idea to respond and clear up a few things by the way if any right-wing people are watching this and wondering if libertarian socialist is an oxymoron let me just clarify that the terms are being used differently from mainstream political discourse in the United States and the u.s. libertarianism is supposed to mean privatization is goods which should rely on market forces as much as possible and basically fuck the pure and socialism is supposed to mean state ownership and control over core parts of the economy and if you use the terms in this way it's understandable why libertarian socialists would seem like an oxymoron however the terms are being used differently here and in a way which is not contradictory here libertarianism is being used to mean a general sense of skepticism towards social hierarchy and socialism is being used to refer to workers control over the means of production so workers run their own workplace rather than bosses or the government now when the terms are used in this sense they're not contradictory it's not a contradiction to be skeptical of social hierarchy and through this skepticism say that we ought to get rid of the bosses and run the workplace ourselves you might be inclined to ask well why don't you just call yourself something else to save the confusion and the simple answer to that is well we were first and we don't see why we should have to change your terminology after it's been co-opted and hijacked by right-wing yuppies finding new ways to shamelessly defend unbridled corporate power with that aside on with my response to TJ a lot of what he says is just sort of flippant remarks that don't really mean anything so I'm just going to respond to his central points from what I've seen most the people who describe themselves as m-ras or anti feminists or anything any other fucker just non feminists in general are not sitting there like we hate feminism or we disagree with feminism or we're not feminist because you know we're against women's reproductive and sex jewelle rights well of course they're not just going to fucking say that are they open bigotry is for the most part socially unacceptable so it's really naive of you to think that just because they don't necessarily or verily say that they're opposed to women's reproductive and sexual rights then there must be nothing to worry about in this regard it's like believing somebody who says I'm not a racist but secondly there are plenty of examples of misogyny within anti-feminist circles stefan molyneux claim that women need to be held accountable for who they have sex with girl rights for claim that she didn't find anything seriously ethically questionable in an article which claimed the court women should be terrorized by their men it's the only thing that makes them behave better than chimps Polly LOM claim that women who go to bars and have a few drinks are practically begging to be raped these are all popular figures not fringe characters within the MRN Paul alarm founded the voice for men website Molyneux in girl rights for both spoke at the AV FM conference in July 2014 and they're all coming out with horrible toxic demonstrably anti women rhetoric but never mind that there's nothing to worry about right what about the positions that we actually attack feminism for like you know such as Anita sarkeesian's video game critiques oh God video game critiques how awful the general point of Anita sarkeesian's video game critiques is that gamer culture tends to be quite heavily male-dominated but it doesn't need to be and that it's possible and desirable for the gaming community to be a more diverse inclusive and welcoming space for women I don't see how that's morally objectionable or the language policing this isn't something that I've experienced in fact there are feminists that have explicitly argued against language policing in the description you'll find the uses of anger by Audrey Lorde and a geek feminism article about tongue policing as a couple of examples or the guilty until proven innocent shit when it comes to rape claim retroactive rape claims if you're a rape victim it's extremely difficult to present evidence to support your case given nature of the situation as a result rape victims often feel completely powerless to do anything about it and fearful of it happening again because often the perpetrator is someone that the victim knows now this scenario is far more common and likely to happen than a false rape accusation and therefore it's more humane to assume that the victim is telling the truth as I've said in my previous videos anarchism holds that social hierarchy that is to say a form of organization where people are ranked one above another in terms of status and authority does not justify itself unless a justification can be given particularly by the word exercise class since when does anarchy happen unless – that Clause if you'd like me finish my sentence I was going to say that hierarchy is not self justifying and the unless the justification can be given then it is illegitimate and should be dismantled and this concept of anarchism is one which has been given by anarcho-syndicalist Noam Chomsky in an interview he said that anarchism is a tendency which aims quote to seco and identify structures of authority hierarchy and domination in every aspect of life and to challenge them unless the justification for them can be given they are illegitimate and should be dismantled to increase the scope of human freedom Chomsky's political ideas stem from anarchist thinkers such as Rudolf rocker Mikhail Bakunin and Peter Kropotkin whom he frequently cites in his writings about anarchism the unless part simply means that there are situations in which authority can meet its burden of proof although they're not very common an example Chomsky gives is if you're a parent and the child runs into a busy road in that situation it's justified to use Authority and even physical coercion to get the child out of the road because doing so saves the child's life in other words your straw Manning anarchists when you imply that they believe that all authority is wrong in all circumstances when in reality they simply reject Authority which fails to meet its burden of proof 99% of these people who go around calling themselves anarchists are fucking like NOT you hear that Noam Chomsky you are not an anarchist TJ the amazing atheist is here to tell us what anarchism is all about because he clearly knew was his shit ever anarchist has to have a line of bullshit I find to justify why they're crazy worldview that doesn't make any sense does make sense no TJ you just don't want to listen to more anarchists actually have to say because it's much more comforting to believe that the institutions of Education in the media that you presumably trusted your whole life are fundamentally correct and their portrayal of radical politics it's much more comforting to believe that than to learn that you've been lied to your whole life and bear in mind of course that the form of authority that anarchists are particularly critical of is distinct from authority that's based on knowledge competence and reason so for example it says it's really simple he's really in favor of meritocracy not anarchy no anarchists have always made this distinction Russian anarchist thinker Mikhail Bakunin in his essay called what his authority says quote does it follow that I reject all authority far from me such a thought in the matter of bits I refer to the authority of the Bootmaker he goes on to say quote I die before the authority of special man because it is imposed on me by my own reason I am conscious of my own inability to grasp in all its detail and positive development any very large portion of human knowledge anarchists are not opposed to referring to someone else because they're more competent and knowledgeable than you about a given subject so you're talking out of your art here not let's hear what you seem to think patriarchy is if I go outside and like snap my fingers and tell a woman to do something she's like well you are a man I'd better obey you patriarchy says so because the patriarchy that does that what obtuse misrepresentation or if there's patriarchy then I should be able to just snap my fingers and get women to follow my instructions I can't do that therefore there's no patriarchy patriarchy does not mean that absolutely any man could just walk up to any women and get her to follow his instructions most feminists do not make that claim in fact Sylvia will be in theorizing patriarchy explicitly states quote I shall define patriarchy is a system of social structures and practices through which men dominate a price and exploit women the use of the term social structure is important here since it clearly implies rejection both of biological determinism and the notion that every individual man is in a dominant position and every woman in a subordinate one the claim is that there are norms and customs in our society which elevate the status of men and lower the status of women governments police and courts tend to be mostly male-dominated institutions the evidence is in the description and the dominance of men in more powerful institutions in society is not as a result of biology or some law of nature but as a result of culture and socialization there are studies which sure that women are perceived to speak more in group conversations than they actually do which seems to suggest that were not as used to women at speaking up and voicing their opinion as we are with men there was also a study which found that people interpreted the emotions of a baby differently depending on whether they were told the baby was a boy or a girl even though everybody was looking at the same video the claim that's being made is that men and women are socialized differently and in such a way that leads to male dominance in society not this gross oversimplification that you've given given that hierarchies based on something as arbitrary as gender are clearly illegitimate anarchists must advocate gender equality however let's just suppose for the sake of argument that feminism and love ilysm and masculinism I love anarchists with like a lot of rules first of all anarchists are not opposed to rules or agreements about what modes of conduct are and aren't acceptable we merely opposed the idea that the power to make and violently enforce rules should be concentrated in the hands of a very small minority of people this doesn't mean that we can't collectively make our own rules ourselves and in a democratic way and enforce them ourselves either non violently or violently if necessary secondly this isn't about rules anyway it's about logical consistency you can't be both an authoritarian and an anti-authoritarian at the same time just like you can't be an atheist and a theist at the same time saying I critical of social hierarchy and yet I don't want to dismantle any arbitrary form of hierarchy based on gender is like saying I'm an atheist but I believe in Thor it's just a logical contradiction and there's no reason why skepticism towards social hierarchy necessarily means that you have to reject logical consistency saying that Annika should advocate gender equality in order to be logically consistent does not violate any anarchist principles at all that's always my favorite yeah that's a key component to anarchy lots of rules you know very formalized structure of anarchy Oh for fuck's sake this is another straw man anarchists do not oppose formal organization we just advocate particularly Democratic formal organization anarchist thinker Mikhail Bakunin states that society should be organized from low to high and from circumference to center by means of free Federation so this means that the economy for example instead of being set up to enrich a very small minority of people at the expense of everybody else would be run through worker self-management now what does that mean well as a rough outline of what this entails basically in each workplace you would have it be controlled by a workers council which operates on principles of direct democracy and the workers councils across each stage of a given industry would federate by means of delegation to form a syndicate and the syndicates in each industry in a given area would federic together again by means of delegation to form a regional economic federation and no I'm not just pulling this out of my arse is something that might be nice to have one day this has been applied in practice historically by anarchist movements and worked such as during the Spanish Revolution which was led primarily by the CNT which was a large-scale uprising involving millions of workers so it's not just a small-scale commune in the woods so yeah anarchists support formal organization because it's the only way that you can meet human needs on a mass scale and because it's the only way that you can build a mass working-class movement anybody who tells you that anarchists are against organisation is talking out of their arse do you know what the theoretical magazine of the anarchist Federation of the UK and Ireland is called organized with an exclamation mark his basic breakdown is you know uh there should be a hierarchy but be based on merit nope that's not what I'm saying I'm saying that because people naturally develop different sets of skills and abilities it's inevitable that people will refer to the authority of others if they are more competent knowledgeable on a given subject this is not the same as saying that there should be a fixed hierarchy based on who knows the most in the conan's what is Authority and see that I mentioned there earlier he explains that competent authority does not entail a FEX structure but rather a continual exchange of mutual temporary Authority he also goes on to say that we shouldn't give any hierarchical privileges to people who are particularly knowledgeable because you'd likely mistake charlatans for geniuses and because power corrupts you'd end up turning geniuses into charlatans by giving them societal privilege and ultimately you would establish masters over Society so no I'm not saying that there should be a hierarchy based on who knows the most an anarchists in general are not saying that all we're saying is that because people develop different sets of skills and interests when it comes to knowledge you refer to different authorities in different situations and that's fine there are subcultures in America that have patriarchy's but to say that America overall is a patriarchy that doesn't really strike me is true when there's no laws that say women can't vote how did women get the right to vote again I I just can't remember there's no laws that say women can't hold elected office there's no laws that say that women are to be closed out of particular jobs you keep referring to laws why do you assume that if oppression is not being legally sanctioned by the state then there's no oppression it's illegal but women are still being raped they're still being harassed regularly on the street and they're still afraid to go out at night wearing whatever they want it's not necessarily a legal requirement for men to harass and rape women but it's still happening in fact there are examples where the state does sanction the oppression of women for example laws restricting women's right to choose whether to have an abort an Ohio state Rep John Adams supported the law which would basically mean that women we have to get consent from their male partners if they wanted to have an abortion now obviously this is ignoring the fact that there are transgender people and lesbian couples and so on thankfully that wasn't passed but given the increasing power of the Christian Right in America I think it's likely that we'll see more anti women anti-abortion legislation being passed in the future Annu yourself have admitted that there is a clusterfuck of bureaucratic procedures that women have to go through just to make a decision about their own bodies I think that that state-sanctioned depression and what he's saying right now is a well men aren't qualified to talk about feminism rich people aren't qualified to talk about wealth inequality you know you don't get to decide who's qualified you have to actually look at opinions based on their own merit the problem is that privileged people are perceived as being impartial and objective whereas disadvantaged people are perceived as being biased and irrational for example there was this male feminist lecturer who turned up at a university to give a lecture about feminism and members of the audience were saying oh finally an objective opinion and he said well what do you mean by an objective opinion and they said well all of the other lecturers that we've had talking about feminism have been women so in this situation it's the man is perceived as being an objective opinion whereas the women is perceived as not being an objective opinion is to do with challenging that kind of perception you can't be for the rights of one or the other if you're truly for equality you have to be for the rights of both teacher what a madman I regret saying that I don't know what I was thinking when I when I said take it back I don't know what I was thinking when I said gender equality would have to examine the rights of both sexes I was being a fool I was clearly only women are disadvantaged ever only women are systemically disadvantaged and achieving gender equality requires alleviating the systemic disadvantage of women in the same way that alleviating the economic – of the working class requires unionizing to improve pay and conditions and eventually empowering workers to run their own workplaces it's not a difficult concept to understand to say that we should give men and women an equal degree of attention in order to achieve gender equality is to assume that neither men nor women are systemically disadvantaged which is not the case and has not been the case historically assuming that women are not systemic ly disadvantaged is to reduce sexism to individualize scenarios rather than to analyze it structurally and in the way of social movements structural analysis not individualism is what gets things done explain to me the power that I have that my maleness bestows upon me like what can what what powers and abilities do I have as a male that if I were female would just simply not be accessible to me whatsoever okay you have the freedom to walk down the street at night wearing whatever you want without fear of being harassed and assaulted you're likely to have higher income than the average woman you have greater employment opportunities it's easier for you to enter a political office you can turn on the television and see your gender being widely represented you aren't constantly bombarded with unattainable beauty standards at least not nearly to the same extent as women if you drive purely it won't be attributed to your gender people won't question your judgment because it's the time of the month although you're an atheist so this doesn't particularly apply here most major religions will propagate the idea that men ought to be in a position of authority over women and so on I can go on but you get the point and just because these inequalities are not always being legally sanctioned by the state that doesn't mean that they're not a problem you seem to have this mindset where everything has to be in absolute so if you're an anarchist it must mean that you reject all forms of authority in all circumstances even competent authority you're opposed to all rules in you don't even like to say that people should be logically consistent because that's authoritarian for some reason and you're opposed to formal organization and then you turn around and say although such a crazy worldview that doesn't make any sense why would anyone believe that bla bla bla when in reality the anarchist position isn't nearly as black-and-white as you're making it out to be it's the same for feminism you seem to think that if you're a feminist that must mean that you think all men are in a dominant position and all women are in a subordinate one men are never any kind of disadvantage ever and absolutely any man can walk up to absolutely any woman and tell it to do something that you'll just do it although this clearly isn't the case therefore there's no patriarchy why on earth would anybody be a feminist when again the feminist position at least for most feminists anyway isn't as black and white as that you also seem to argue that oppression begins and ends with the law and so if there are no laws which say women should be subordinate then there's nothing to worry about to me this is completely false it's perfectly plausible for women to be oppressed or stifled as a result of cultural factors and social norms and pressures from the media which aren't necessarily dictated into being by law and it's reductionist to suggest otherwise when it comes to your misrepresentation of anarchism I think that comes down to ignorance and I don't think about your fault I can't blame you for not knowing anything about an obscure political ideology that has to be kept out of the limelight well everybody else debates within a very narrow spectrum of opinion between neoliberalism and social democracy when it comes to feminism you strike me as being more dishonest because feminism model still not being very well represented it is more well-known than anarchism you've exposed yourself to it more and you've had plenty of opportunities to learn about what feminists actually believe and yet you continue to make these misrepresentations that aren't reflective of the actual feminist position if you'd like I'd be happy to debate with you about anarchism if you're up for it and you're willing to learn about it I'm not up for debating with you Oh feminism because although I agree with the general line of argument I don't know a great deal about it and so I wouldn't be the best person to defend it however if you're willing to debate with me about anarchism then I'm up for that so that concludes my video response to the amazing atheist / the drunken peasants I hope you enjoyed it for more Atticus content subscribe to libertarian socialist rants and Atticus collective thanks for watching bye bye

  1. Like you said, Anarchism is an obscure ideology that's kept out of the limelight. As a result, most people know nothing about Anarchist theory and the history of Anarchist thought and Anarchist movements. They just know the dictionary definition of the term, and most don't care to look further than that. Why call yourself an Anarchist, when all it does is cause confusion? Why not call yourself a Communist, or a Socialist (since Communism is so broadly maligned and misunderstood in the west, whereas Eagleland is really the only place where Socialism is actively misunderstood)? The theory essentially lines up with your beliefs, and the term makes it clearer where you actually stand. (I know, it's In your name; don't @ me. I'm merely responding to your convoluted and obscure definition of Anarchism).

  2. In this exclusive presentation, Mark Passio reveals to the Anarchist community how Dark Occult influences are affecting the dynamic of human freedom. Mark explains that a deep working knowledge of the Occult is mandatory for every true Anarchist to know in order to become fully spiritually awakened – a state of Consciousness they must reach in order to help others gain an accurate understanding of what is truly happening in our world. While the political and financial arenas are controlled and manipulated behind the scenes by these Dark Occult forces, most Anarchists are still loathe to incorporate this vital knowledge into their work or discuss it with their peers. This is a fatal flaw within the Anarchist community which is actually hindering the Great Work of a true spiritual awakening on a mass scale.:

  3. The Unholy Feminine – Neo-Feminism & The Satanic Epi-Eugenics Agenda – Part 1 of 2 In this controversial presentation, Mark Passio blows wide open the Dark Occult agenda of Neo-Feminism, which is being used to sow the seeds of discord between men and women in order to weaken the human species and ensure that future generations of humanity lack the traits necessary to resist tyranny. The destruction of gender roles and the familial dynamic are explored as major themes throughout Mark’s hard-hitting lecture. :

  4. If people have different skill and are more competent, that doesn't mean they have any authority. You can seek someone's advice and not take it or take it. The final desicion is yours. Authority is always justified coercion. But there is no justification.

  5. What? You are an authoritarian, you believe there is authority and that authority should be found and abided.

  6. Noam Chomsky is a failed sceptic, since he believes that justification is possible. But since Hume and Popper and Bartley we have devastating criticisms of justifcationism that at have so far withstood counter-criticism. Nothing can be justified. And we don't need justification for truth, since if we did there would be no truth. So you claiming that sometimes hierarchies meet their burden of proof is false.

    The scenario you give about the child is not justified, although it is the correct course of action.

  7. 17:16 lol I like how he is strawmanning a point that hasn't even been made yet… truly amazing

  8. I like you a lot, dude; I truly appreciate your efforts to spread the word of anarchism, but I feel like you're completely "wrong" about your belief that people are guilty until proven innocent when there is an accusation that they raped someone. It doesn't make any sense, people are called rapist all the fucking time for no fucking reason except to forward their own agenda. And on the rare occasion where it's true and somehow they werent proven guilty, then maybe the victim should've brought a weapon to defend themselves with. We live in a fucked up world, if you want to properly defend yourself, then bring something to defend yourself with, it's the only way.

  9. Anita Sarkeesian just want all game with even the slightest bit of erotica to be banned from being made. That's why people like me have such a problem with her

  10. Cameron, you are a gem of intelligence and integrity and you deserve to have a full-blown production crew behind your videos and channel. As appreciated as thesse debunkings of people like TJ are, I would love to see you eventually debate someone like Ben Shapiro or Jordan Peterson. They may seem like expert debaters when they catch random college students off-guard, but all of what you have to say so thoroughly debunks their viewpoints.

  11. And btw the amazing athiest is misleading. And just stupid. He’s just out to make money with controversy like you.

  12. Love your videos, Cameron, and while I don't disagree with your analysis of rape cases, I think it could have been worded a little better.

    Here's what I believe. If there is no hard evidence and both the victim and the accused are credible, then the benefit of the doubt is in the victim's favor given the HIGH (I say HIIIIGH) likelihood that the victim is telling the truth. Yes, this would result in a small minority of people who are falsely convicted, and while that is by no means ideal, it is still preferable to the alternative case where the majority of rape victims, regardless of gender, don't get justice.
    To alleviate the affects of this, anarchists advocate that the dismantling of unjust authority would cause rape and other crimes to be far less common, if not permanently eradicated. Whatever remains of anti-social behavior would be dealt with by reforming the way we deal with it by basing our responses on rehabilitation and restoration rather than punishment.
    Who knows? Maybe in time we could figure out ways to differentiate true and false rape claims with 100% accuracy. Now is not that time. And we have to make do with that by minimizing the damages rape has on our society.

    Still a huge fan!

  13. I disagree on the whole "power corrupts" thing because am asshole that happens to hold power would still be an asshole with or without it.

  14. I feel like TJ is conflating actual anarchism with pop anarchism. Pop anarchism being those hardcore punk dudes with crazy ass hair bashing cars and screaming "fuck the system" without any real nuance, and is just simplified rebellion.

    I don't expect TJ to know anything legitimate about anarchism however, just like I don't expect him to know anything about marxist theory. People figure he's a skeptic and atheist, therefore he must be an intellectual. He's so annoying.

  15. I used to like TJ back in the days when he commented on police abuse and religious bs; I know he's been against radical feminism for a long time; but with the years he seems more and more detached from logic…

  16. i can go out at night wherever i want and wearing whatever i want without getting harassed or assaulted ?
    WTF !? in what world are you living ? besides that , women have privileges over men, to start with the simple example that they can choose their mate , men and women are fundamentally different , acknowledging differences doesn't mean hate towards one or the other.
    If a woman is pregnant and can't work , should she be paid anyway ?
    Always kicking that dead horse , really tiring , just let's support segregation , then women will finally live happy in peace .
    You guys constanly fail to win me over to not be an anti feminist.

  17. I can agree with you on some parts, but innocent until proven guilty is what builds a justice system where innocent individuals can be safe from unfair punishments, it does not matter that we get to lock up more rapers if the state puts innocent people in jail, I rather have 100 rapers free then one innocent be put in jail by the state.

  18. Thanks for breaking down these lazy arguments. It's about time someone did so publicly. These dudes who drop ignorant, barely-thought-out sound bites thinking they've decimated feminist theory when they've never read a single feminist book are so goddamn cringey and tiresome. Even worse is people believe them.

  19. TJ uses to be so much better when he talked about liberalism and criticised conservatives and free market capitalism.Now all he wants to talk about is SJW's.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *